Statewise Local Job Reservations: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana’s Impactful Moves Compared

Statewise Local Job Reservations: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana’s Impactful Moves Compared

On July 16, the Karnataka Cabinet approved a new bill mandating reservations for local candidates in private sector jobs. The bill requires 50% of management positions and 75% of non-management roles to be filled by ‘Kannadigas’ or locals. This decision has sparked mixed reactions, prompting a look into similar legislation in other Indian states.

Haryana’s Attempt and Legal Challenge

In 2020, Haryana enacted the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, which aimed to ensure that 75% of jobs with salaries under ₹30,000 were reserved for state domiciles. However, this legislation faced a legal challenge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and was struck down in 2023. The court cited constitutional concerns regarding equality and freedom, arguing that such laws restricted private employers from hiring freely.

Andhra Pradesh’s Precedent

In 2019, Andhra Pradesh became the first state to pass a law requiring 75% reservation for locals in private sector jobs. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court raised doubts about its constitutionality in 2020, echoing similar concerns.

Details of the Karnataka Reservation Bill

According to reports, the Karnataka bill mandates that industries appoint 50% of management and 75% of non-management roles to local candidates. It specifies that candidates must either be Kannadiga by birth or pass a Kannada proficiency test if they lack a secondary school certificate in the language. If local candidates are unavailable, establishments must collaborate with the government to train them within three years.

Response and Legal Scrutiny

The decision in Karnataka mirrors past legislative efforts in Andhra Pradesh and Haryana, all of which have faced legal challenges based on constitutional grounds of equality and freedom. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the validity of these laws, indicating a broader legal debate about state authority versus individual rights in employment practices.

Conclusion

While the Karnataka government’s move aims to prioritize local employment, similar laws in other states have encountered legal obstacles. The debate surrounding these laws underscores the delicate balance between promoting local interests and upholding constitutional principles of equality and freedom in employment opportunities.